Interdisciplinary

The contention of this argument is that Intelligent Design (ID) ought to neither to be regarded as science nor as pseudoscience. After examining Bruce L. Gordon’s argument that ID is science according to three conventional sets of criteria in philosophy, I conclude that his criteria or his argument lack a necessary criterion that ID’s claims be testable. However, I then examine an argument by Mark Perakh and Matt Young that ID is not science and therefore is pseudoscience. I respond that some of their criteria for pseudoscience are not actually met by ID, and that some actually point at characteristics of ID’s proponents instead of the set of ID arguments itself. I do admit that some of their criteria for pseudoscience are met, but contest that these are poor criteria that are not features of pseudoscience, but merely of political strife surrounding a cultural controversy—some of which is worthwhile, and some of which is frivolous bickering.